Chapter 7 - Equality consideration

Question 17 - Do you anticipate any of the proposed
options outlined in this consultation will have a direct or
indirect positive or negative impact on any protected equality
characteristics?

Table 25: Question 17 – Responses by type of
respondent.

Type of respondent

Yes

No

Not answered

Total

Individuals

11

59

6

76

Organisations:

Health & Social Care Partnership

2

2

1

5

Independent sector health or social care
organisation

2

2

NHS based
professional group or committee

1

4

5

NHS Body
or Board

1

5

6

Other

1

2

3

Other public body

1

1

2

Professional college, body, group or union

5

4

3

12

Total organisations

10

18

7

35

All respondents

21

77

13

111

% of all respondents

19%

69%

12%

100%

% of those answering the question

21%

79%

100%

A majority of those answering the question, 79%, did not
anticipate any of the proposed options outlined in this
consultation will have a direct or indirect positive or negative
impact on any protected equality characteristics. The majority of
individual and organisational respondents (59 out of 70 and 18 out
of 28 respectively) did not expect the proposals to impact on any
protected equality characteristics. However, the majority of
Professional college, body, group or union respondents did expect
the proposals to have an impact.

Table 26: Question 17 – Discussion Groups

Yes

No

Mixed Views

Not answered

Total

6

15

4

25

Fifteen discussion groups did not anticipate any impact, six did
and four did not answer the question.

There were 29 further comments made through Citizen Space and 17
discussion groups made a comment. Comments tended to be brief.

The three most frequently-identified themes in relation to
Question 17 were:

The potential impact on individuals using services in the
event of service closure.

The disproportionate impact on women because of the number of
women working in the care sector.

The need to engage with affected staff as well as specialist
equality advisors.

Comments made by those who did not anticipate the proposals
would have any impact included that there should be engagement with
affected staff and equality and diversity advisors.

Those who did think there would be an impact sometimes
identified which types of people or groups they anticipated being
affected. They sometimes, but not always, also identified the
nature of the anticipated impact. The suggestions included:

All or many of those within protected characteristics groups.
Further comments included that they will be affected if services
are threatened with closure.

Women, because they make up such a significant proportion of
the affected workforces. It was suggested that the impact could
be positive or negative depending on whether staffing is
increased or decreased, and grades increased or decreased.

Pregnant women, if midwifery services are affected or if
there is downward pressure on requests for flexible working from
women who are pregnant or have caring responsibilities.

Older people and people with a disability could be affected
positively if staffing levels increase.

Children and adults with Down's Syndrome and their families.
It was felt that, provided implementation is monitored and action
taken when agencies fail to comply, the proposals will improve
quality of life. However, it was also suggested that greater
attention should be given to training to ensure that the proposed
options have a positive impact on expectant or new parents and
people with Down's Syndrome. The particular issues raised were
around the terminology used by some healthcare professionals and
experiences of ante/post-natal care.

Although not a protected characteristic group, it was also
suggested that other staff members are affected by variations in
policy on providing cover when a member of the team is on maternity
leave.